Regulations & Safety
FAA Delays Secondary Cockpit Barrier Rule Implementation to 2026
FAA postpones secondary cockpit barrier mandate by one year due to certification and training challenges for new U.S. passenger aircraft.
Comprehensive Analysis of the FAA‘s One-Year Delay for Secondary Cockpit Barrier Implementation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a one-year delay on July 22, 2025, for the implementation of its rule requiring secondary cockpit barriers on newly manufactured U.S. passenger aircraft. This decision responds to industry requests for additional preparation time amid unresolved certification and training challenges. The barrier mandate, originally set for August 2025, aims to prevent unauthorized access to flight decks when cockpit doors are open, addressing security vulnerabilities exposed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Airlines for America (A4A), representing major carriers like Delta and American Airlines, sought a two-year extension due to incomplete FAA certification of barrier systems and absent training protocols. Conversely, pilot unions vehemently opposed any delay, citing persistent terrorism threats. This interim resolution balances operational realities against aviation security imperatives while spotlighting systemic regulatory coordination gaps.
Historical Context and Legislative Foundations of Flight Deck Security
Aviation security underwent transformative changes following the September 11, 2001, hijackings, where terrorists exploited cockpit access during door transitions. The FAA initially mandated reinforced cockpit doors in 2007, requiring them to remain locked during flight except for essential access. However, this left vulnerabilities when doors opened for crew movements, meals, or lavatory use.
Congressional action via Section 336 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act directed the FAA to require secondary barriers on all new passenger aircraft manufactured for U.S. airlines. The legislation set a 2019 deadline for rule implementation, but procedural delays postponed the proposed rule until July 2022 and the final rule until June 14, 2023. This final rule applied exclusively to aircraft manufactured after August 25, 2025, exempting existing fleets from retrofits.
This timeline illustrates the complexities of aviation regulation, where legislative intent often collides with the procedural rigor of rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The delay between congressional mandate and final rule underscores the challenges of aligning policy with technical feasibility and stakeholder consensus.
Technical Specifications and Implementation Challenges
The Installed Physical Secondary Barrier (IPSB) functions as a retractable gate or partition between the forward galley and cockpit door. FAA Advisory Circular 25.795-10 mandates it withstand 600 pounds of static pressure and 250 pounds of pull force at critical points like latches and hinges. During door transitions, averaging 5–10 seconds, the barrier must delay intrusion long enough for crew to secure the cockpit.
Despite the 2023 rule, no IPSB models had received FAA certification by July 2025. Manufacturers like SCHROTH and AmSafe Bridport developed prototypes, but testing protocols remained incomplete. Concurrently, airlines lacked FAA-approved training modules for crew deployment procedures. Airlines for America emphasized this created an “impossible timeline,” as manuals, simulations, and recurrent training programs require 12–18 months to develop post-certification.
These technical gaps prompted A4A’s petition for a delay, arguing that without certified barriers or training frameworks, compliance would be infeasible and potentially disruptive to aircraft deliveries and operations.
“The FAA’s delay acknowledges the practical hurdles airlines face, but it also highlights the need for better regulatory coordination to avoid last-minute bottlenecks in critical safety implementations.”
Stakeholder Divisions and Security Debates
Airlines for America’s Position
A4A’s May 5, 2025, petition requested a two-year delay, arguing that uncertified barriers and absent training materials made compliance unfeasible. They noted that existing protocols, like using galley carts as temporary barricades, provided equivalent security during door transitions. Major carriers warned of operational disruptions, including grounded aircraft, if the rule took effect without certified solutions.
The organization emphasized that manufacturers had not finalized IPSB designs and that simulation-based training for crew members could not begin without FAA-approved curriculums. These concerns were echoed by regional carriers, who feared disproportionate impacts on smaller fleets and aircraft types.
From A4A’s standpoint, the delay was not a rejection of security improvements but a necessary adjustment to align safety goals with operational feasibility.
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) Opposition
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi condemned delay requests as “stalling tactics,” highlighting 52 global hijacking attempts since 2001 as evidence of enduring threats. The union cited FAA-funded studies showing IPSBs reduce intrusion risk by 15% and called the $5 million–$29 million annual industry cost negligible against terrorism risks.
ALPA noted that Boeing and Airbus previously offered IPSBs as standard equipment, questioning manufacturers’ preparation delays. The union also emphasized that the FAA’s own data supported the effectiveness of secondary barriers in reducing the likelihood of successful cockpit intrusions.
For ALPA and other pilot unions, the delay represents a missed opportunity to close a known security gap, particularly when the technology and policy frameworks have been under discussion for nearly a decade.
FAA’s Mediating Role
The FAA’s one-year compromise acknowledged certification bottlenecks while rejecting calls for more extensive delays. Acting Administrator Billy Nolen emphasized that secondary barriers “ensure flight crews have the physical protections they deserve,” aligning with the Biden-Harris administration’s prioritization of the rule.
The agency committed to finalizing certification standards by October 2025, aiming to provide manufacturers and airlines a clear path to compliance. The FAA also reiterated that the rule applies only to new aircraft and does not require retrofits for existing fleets.
By choosing a middle path, the FAA seeks to preserve the rule’s integrity while accommodating industry readiness, though this approach has drawn criticism from both safety advocates and operational stakeholders.
Economic and Risk-Analysis Frameworks
Cost estimates for implementing secondary barriers vary widely depending on aircraft type and scope of deployment. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated per-aircraft costs between $5,000 and $12,000, while the FAA projected up to $35,000 per unit including installation and training. Equipping the entire U.S. passenger fleet could cost between $71 million and $207 million.
The FAA’s 2022 regulatory impact analysis forecast annualized costs of $20.3 million to $29 million over a 50-year horizon. These figures include equipment, certification, training, and maintenance expenses. Despite these costs, multiple studies have found strong benefit-to-cost ratios for IPSBs.
A University of Newcastle study determined IPSBs yield a 41:1 benefit-cost ratio, assuming they prevent 9/11-scale attacks valued at $37.7 billion. The FAA’s break-even analysis concluded barriers are cost-effective if the annual probability of a successful hijacking exceeds 0.66%, or one attack every 151 years. Given the persistent threat landscape, many experts consider this a conservative threshold.
Global Context and Industry Implications
Internationally, the U.S. delay contrasts with growing momentum toward secondary barriers. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is drafting similar mandates, while Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates have voluntarily installed IPSBs on their Airbus A380 fleets. These developments suggest a broader industry trend toward enhanced cockpit security.
Domestically, the delay affects aircraft production pipelines. Airbus designated AmSafe Bridport’s fabric-and-frame barrier for A220 line-fit installations, while Boeing faces supply-chain challenges in retrofitting 737 MAX deliveries. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) supported the delay, citing the complexity of integrating barriers into smaller aircraft like the Embraer E175.
The rule’s exemption for cargo aircraft remains contentious. ALPA and other safety advocates argue that freighters, which often operate with fewer crew and security personnel, should also be subject to the IPSB requirement. This debate could influence future legislative or regulatory action.
Conclusion: Security Versus Feasibility in Aviation Policy
The FAA’s calibrated delay balances urgent security imperatives against operational realities. One year provides a finite window to resolve certification and training gaps that persisted throughout the original two-year implementation period. However, this compromise underscores systemic vulnerabilities in aviation rulemaking: Legislative mandates remain susceptible to procedural delays, while stakeholder discord impedes consensus on risk mitigation.
The secondary barrier episode exemplifies how aviation security evolves through tension between proactive threat prevention and reactive operational pragmatism. Future efforts must prioritize synchronized regulator-manufacturer-airline collaboration to avoid analogous bottlenecks in emerging security technologies. As global terrorism threats evolve, regulatory agility becomes as critical as physical defenses in safeguarding flight decks.
FAQ
What is a secondary cockpit barrier?
A secondary cockpit barrier is a physical device, such as a retractable gate, installed between the cockpit door and the passenger cabin to prevent unauthorized access during door transitions.
Why did the FAA delay the rule?
The FAA granted a one-year delay due to a lack of certified barrier designs and approved training materials, making compliance by August 2025 unfeasible for airlines.
Does the rule apply to existing aircraft?
No, the rule only applies to newly manufactured passenger aircraft delivered after August 25, 2025. Existing aircraft are exempt from retrofitting under the current regulation.
Sources
Reuters, FAA, Air Line Pilots Association, Congressional Budget Office, University of Newcastle
Photo Credit: PYOK
Regulations & Safety
Jet2 Contractor Seriously Injured After Fall at Manchester Airport
A contractor fell from a Jet2 plane at Manchester Airport, sustaining serious injuries. Jet2 is conducting a full investigation into the incident.
This article summarizes reporting by Manchester Evening News and Paul Britton.
A severe incident at Manchester Airport on Saturday morning left an aviation contractor with serious injuries after falling from a Jet2 aircraft. Emergency responders were dispatched to the tarmac following the fall, which occurred near the rear of the plane.
According to reporting by the Manchester Evening News, the injured individual is believed to be an aircraft engineer employed by a third-party provider. The worker sustained multiple severe injuries, including fractures to the arm and leg, and was transported to a local hospital for ongoing treatment.
The aircraft involved was reportedly preparing for a scheduled departure to Tenerife when the fall occurred at approximately 8:00 a.m. local time. Jet2 has since confirmed that a comprehensive investigation into the workplace accident is underway.
Emergency Response on the Tarmac
Immediate Medical Attention
Following the fall, paramedics from the North West Ambulance Service were immediately scrambled to the scene to provide critical care. Witnesses cited by the Manchester Evening News noted that emergency personnel erected medical screens around the injured contractor while administering first aid on the tarmac.
The prompt response highlights the severe nature of the injuries sustained. The worker, whose identity has not been publicly released, remains hospitalized as medical teams address the significant bone fractures resulting from the drop.
Aircraft and Equipment Positioning
Photographs and witness accounts from the scene indicate that the Jet2 aircraft had a rear door open near the tail section at the time of the accident. Mobile passenger stairs were also observed in close proximity to the aircraft.
While the exact sequence of events leading to the fall remains unconfirmed, the positioning of the open door and the mobile stairs will likely be a focal point for safety investigators examining how the contractor fell from the elevated threshold.
Jet2 Launches Full Investigation
Airline Acknowledges Third-Party Involvement
In the wake of the accident, Jet2 issued a public statement acknowledging the event and clarifying the worker’s employment status. The airline noted that the individual was not a direct employee but worked for an external service provider contracted at the airport.
In a statement provided to the press, a Jet2 spokesperson confirmed the ongoing inquiry:
“We are unable to confirm further details at present, however, can confirm that a full investigation has been launched.”
The airline also emphasized that they are working to provide necessary support to those affected by the morning’s events.
AirPro News analysis
Ground handling and aircraft maintenance are inherently high-risk environments, particularly when personnel are operating near open cabin doors or elevated service platforms. Standard operating procedures typically dictate strict protocols for the placement and removal of mobile stairs, as well as the securing of aircraft doors when ground equipment is not flush against the fuselage.
When a worker falls from an aircraft door, investigators usually examine whether safety harnesses were required, if the mobile stairs were prematurely moved, or if there was a miscommunication between the ground crew and the personnel inside the cabin. The involvement of a third-party contractor also means that the investigation will likely scrutinize the coordination and safety oversight between Jet2 and its service providers at Manchester Airport.
The aviation industry maintains rigorous safety management systems to mitigate the risks associated with tarmac operations. Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of occupational injuries in aviation maintenance and ground handling. Regulatory bodies frequently collaborate on investigations of this nature to determine if workplace safety regulations were breached. The findings from Jet2’s internal investigation will likely be utilized to prevent future occurrences and ensure that third-party contractors adhere to stringent safety standards.
Frequently Asked Questions
When and where did the incident occur?
The fall took place at Manchester Airport at approximately 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 11, 2026.
Who was injured in the fall?
An unnamed male contractor, believed to be an aircraft engineer working for a third-party provider, sustained serious injuries including arm and leg fractures.
What airline was involved?
The incident involved a Jet2 aircraft that was scheduled to depart for Tenerife.
Sources
Photo Credit: X
Regulations & Safety
ICAO Issues Mental Health Guidance for Aviation in Conflict Zones
ICAO calls for mental health support for aviation personnel amid Middle East conflict, highlighting safety risks and pilot union demands.
This article is based on an official press release from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), supplemented by industry research and reporting.
On April 9, 2026, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) issued urgent guidance aimed at mitigating the significant mental stress experienced by aviation personnel operating in or near active conflict zones. The United Nations aviation agency formally classified these mental health impacts as foreseeable, cumulative, and critical to overall operational safety.
This directive arrives during a period of unprecedented strain on global aviation networks. A volatile, six-week-long military conflict in the Middle-East involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has forced complex flight rerouting and widespread airspace closures since late February 2026.
According to the official ICAO press release, the agency is calling on member states, aviation organizations, and public health partners to collaboratively implement proactive, evidence-based strategies. We note that this guidance seeks to protect not only flight crews but the entire aviation workforce, including Airlines and ground staff, who are currently facing elevated stress, anxiety, and fatigue.
ICAO’s Urgent Directive on Mental Well-Being
A Multilayered Approach to Safety
The ICAO guidance outlines a multilayered approach to reducing mental stress, emphasizing coordinated action across organizational, operational, and individual levels. The agency urges aviation organizations to adopt clear policies prioritizing mental well-being and to implement operational changes that minimize unnecessary stress.
“Supporting mental well-being is both a duty of care and a safety requirement.”
, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The press release highlights that personnel across all aviation functions are susceptible to conflict-related pressures. If left unaddressed, ICAO warns that these effects can compromise both individual well-being and operational safety. To combat this, ICAO recommends providing consistent access to qualified mental health resources, targeted training to recognize early signs of distress, and timely post-incident support such as professional psychological care and peer support.
Effective communication is also highlighted as essential. ICAO encourages aviation leadership to prioritize two-way dialogue, ensuring personnel can discuss operational challenges and raise concerns without fear of stigma.
The Geopolitical Catalyst and Operational Strain
Navigating the Middle East Aviation Crisis
The urgency of ICAO’s April 9 bulletin is directly tied to the ongoing Middle East aviation crisis. Industry research indicates that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has extended its advisory for airlines to avoid Middle Eastern and Gulf airspace until April 24, 2026. Despite these warnings, several major carriers continue to operate through narrow, congested safe corridors, significantly increasing the cognitive load on flight crews.
This geopolitical instability has led to severe capacity reductions. As of early April 2026, industry data shows Emirates operating at approximately 69 percent of its normal capacity, while Qatar Airways has been limited to around 26 percent. Furthermore, regulators such as India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have granted temporary exemptions extending maximum flight times and duty periods for airlines like Air India until April 30, 2026, to accommodate longer rerouted flights via Egypt and Oman.
Pilot Unions Push Back Against Commercial Pressures
Demands for Commander Authority
As operational complexities mount, pilot unions are increasingly vocal about the toll on their members. On April 6 and 7, 2026, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) issued a firm position paper demanding that an aircraft commander’s decision to refuse operations in or reroute around war-torn airspace must be final and non-negotiable.
According to industry reports, IFALPA explicitly warned against the normalization of degraded safety conditions, noting that repeated uneventful flights through conflict zones may mask evolving dangers.
“The normalisation of degraded conditions must be avoided, as the passage of time in a protracted conflict does not diminish the operational complexity.”
, IFALPA Position Summary
Similarly, the Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA) has urged the DGCA to suspend flight operations into high-risk Middle Eastern zones until centralized risk assessments are conducted. ALPA argues that commercial airlines lack the necessary military intelligence capabilities to adequately evaluate active threats.
AirPro News analysis
The intersection of mental health and operational safety is rapidly becoming a defining issue for the aviation industry in 2026. As airlines grapple with surging war-risk insurance premiums and the necessity of fuel surcharges due to longer routes, the commercial pressure to maintain schedules is immense. However, ICAO’s formal recognition of mental stress as a “safety-critical” factor shifts the paradigm. By explicitly linking psychological well-being to the risk of human error, ICAO is providing pilot unions with regulatory backing to push back against extended duty hours and hazardous routing. While a temporary two-week ceasefire was announced around April 7, 2026, the underlying volatility remains. We assess that the true test of this guidance will be whether national regulators enforce these mental health provisions as strictly as traditional mechanical Safety standards.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Who is covered by the new ICAO mental health guidance?
According to the ICAO press release, the guidance covers personnel across all aviation functions. This includes flight crews, air traffic controllers, cabin crews, maintenance teams, and ground staff operating in or near conflict zones.
Why are flight times being extended?
Due to airspace closures in the Middle East, airlines are forced to fly longer, rerouted paths to avoid active conflict zones. Regulators in some countries have granted temporary exemptions to extend maximum flight duty periods to accommodate these longer routes, though pilot unions have flagged this as a significant fatigue risk.
How long are the current airspace advisories in effect?
Industry data notes that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has extended its advisory to avoid Middle Eastern and Gulf airspace until April 24, 2026, while certain duty time exemptions extend to April 30, 2026. ICAO states it will continue to monitor developments and refine its recommendations as the situation evolves.
Sources:
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Press Release
Industry Research and Geopolitical Aviation Data (Web Search)
Photo Credit: ICAO
Regulations & Safety
FAA Investigates Near-Collision of Frontier Plane and Trucks at LAX
FAA investigates a close call at LAX where a Frontier Airlines plane braked abruptly to avoid trucks crossing a taxiway, highlighting ground traffic risks.
This article summarizes reporting by CBS News and Hunter Sowards.
The FAA (FAA) has launched an official investigation following a near-collision between a commercial passenger jet and two ground vehicles at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). According to reporting by CBS News, a Frontier Airlines plane was forced to execute an abrupt braking maneuver on an active taxiway to avoid striking two trucks that unexpectedly crossed its path.
The incident, which occurred in early April 2026, has cast a renewed spotlight on airport ground traffic management and control tower visibility. While a disaster was averted, the close call arrives during a period of heightened national anxiety regarding aviation safety, following a tragic runway collision in New York just weeks prior.
At AirPro News, we are closely monitoring the FAA’s response to this event, as it raises critical questions about the protocols governing ground support equipment and the technological limitations of current air traffic control infrastructure at major international hubs.
The Incident at LAX
Flight Details and Evasive Action
As detailed in the CBS News report, the Frontier Airlines flight was carrying 217 passengers and 7 crew members when the incident unfolded. The aircraft was taxiing at a relatively low speed of approximately 15 mph. This reduced velocity proved to be a critical factor, affording the flight crew the necessary reaction time to halt the aircraft before making contact with the crossing vehicles.
Air traffic control audio captured the immediate aftermath of the near-miss, highlighting the sudden nature of the encounter. The Frontier pilot reported the event to the tower, emphasizing the severity of the situation.
“We just had two trucks cut us off. We had to slam on the brakes to not hit them,” the pilot stated over the radio.
In a subsequent transmission, the pilot underscored the proximity of the vehicles, noting the need to check on the cabin crew following the sudden deceleration.
“It happened so fast. I have to go check on the flight attendants in the back. It was real close, closest I’ve ever seen.”
Following the event, Frontier Airlines issued a statement commending their flight crew. According to the airline’s public remarks, the pilots were praised for their “quick thinking” which successfully averted a potential disaster. Fortunately, no injuries were reported among the passengers or crew members on board.
Systemic Vulnerabilities and Ground Traffic
Blind Spots in the Control Tower
The investigation is expected to probe not only the actions of the truck drivers but also the structural limitations of LAX’s ground monitoring. Brian Sinclair, a former F-18 pilot and current instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy, provided expert analysis on the incident, pointing out significant visibility challenges at the airport.
According to Sinclair’s assessment, air traffic controllers may have missed the unfolding danger due to known infrastructural blind spots. Sinclair noted that there are three specific locations at LAX where tower personnel simply cannot see the taxiways, creating an inherent operational risk.
Right-of-Way on the Tarmac
The presence of ground vehicles near active aircraft is a routine aspect of airport operations, but strict protocols govern these interactions. CBS News Senior Transportation Correspondent Kris Van Cleave explained that while LAX maintains separate lanes for aircraft and ground vehicles, these paths inevitably cross.
Van Cleave emphasized that standard right-of-way rules must dictate these intersections to maintain safety.
“But, there are times when those lanes intersect, and the rules of the road still apply. You got to yield for the bigger vehicle,” Van Cleave explained.
As of the latest updates, LAX authorities have not publicly identified the truck drivers, their contracting employers, or the specific reasons why they breached the taxiway intersection at that exact moment.
A Climate of Heightened Scrutiny
Contrasting with the LaGuardia Tragedy
To fully understand the gravity of the FAA’s swift investigative response, this LAX incident must be viewed within the broader context of recent aviation emergencies. Just weeks earlier, on March 22, 2026, a fatal collision occurred at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, sending shockwaves through the aviation industry.
In the LaGuardia tragedy, an Air Canada Express CRJ-900 jet (Flight 8646) carrying 72 passengers and 4 crew members collided with a Port Authority fire truck on an active runway. The fire apparatus was responding to a separate emergency when it was struck by the landing aircraft. The catastrophic impact resulted in the deaths of the two pilots, Antoine Forest and Mackenzie Gunther, and left dozens of passengers and crew members injured.
While the LAX close call has triggered similar anxieties, experts are quick to draw sharp distinctions between the two events. The LAX aircraft was moving at a low taxiing speed of 15 mph, whereas the LaGuardia aircraft was touching down at high landing speeds. Furthermore, the nature of the ground vehicles differed significantly.
“It is not a circumstance like we saw in LaGuardia, where you had vehicles that were responding to an emergency,” Van Cleave noted, highlighting the differences in operational context.
AirPro News analysis
At AirPro News, we assess that the LAX taxiway incident, while non-fatal, exposes critical vulnerabilities in ground vehicle tracking and tower visibility at major U.S. airports. The revelation that LAX operates with three known blind spots where controllers cannot visually confirm taxiway traffic is a glaring operational gap. We anticipate that the FAA’s final report may mandate the installation of supplementary surface movement cameras or enhanced ground radar systems to cover these specific blind spots.
Furthermore, the lack of immediate public accountability regarding the truck drivers suggests a potential breakdown in contractor training or ground crew communication. As the aviation industry continues to reel from the fatal LaGuardia collision, regulatory bodies are likely to exhibit zero tolerance for ground incursions, even at low speeds. We expect this investigation to serve as a catalyst for a nationwide review of right-of-way protocols between commercial aircraft and third-party ground service vehicles.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What happened at LAX involving a Frontier Airlines plane?
In early April 2026, a Frontier Airlines passenger jet carrying 217 passengers and 7 crew members had to brake abruptly on an LAX taxiway to avoid colliding with two ground trucks that cut across its path. The aircraft was traveling at approximately 15 mph at the time.
Were there any injuries reported in the LAX incident?
No. Thanks to the low speed of the aircraft and the quick reaction of the pilots, the plane stopped in time, and no injuries were reported among the passengers or crew.
Why is the FAA investigating this specific close call?
The FAA investigates all runway and taxiway incursions to ensure safety protocols are functioning. This incident is receiving particular attention due to known visibility blind spots from the LAX control tower and a heightened national focus on ground safety following a recent fatal collision at LaGuardia Airport.
How does the LAX incident differ from the recent LaGuardia crash?
The March 22, 2026, LaGuardia collision involved a landing aircraft striking an emergency fire truck at high speed, resulting in two pilot fatalities and numerous injuries. The LAX incident involved a plane taxiing at a low speed (15 mph) and non-emergency ground trucks, allowing the pilots enough time to stop safely without any resulting injuries.
Sources: CBS News
Photo Credit: Frontier Airlines
-
Electric Aircraft1 day agoElysian Aircraft Advances E9X Electric Airliner Design for Regional Flights
-
MRO & Manufacturing4 days agoAero Accessories Expands MRO Services with Miami Acquisitions
-
MRO & Manufacturing5 days agoSenior Plc Agrees £1.28 Billion Takeover by Tinicum and Blackstone
-
Commercial Aviation4 days agoIndiGo A320neo Grounded After Ground Collision at Kolkata Airport
-
Regulations & Safety2 days agoUnited Airlines Boeing 737 Collides with Deicing Trucks at Denver Airport